Paul, the Author of Romans, makes it clear that "there is no authority except that which God has established," he also states "the authorities that exist have been established by God," and "whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted."
As a Christian citizen, this seems terrifying, leaving the faithful helpless against the whim of rampaging tyrants. As a rampaging tyrant, this passage seems agreeable, possibly reducing the threat of revolt from angry subjects.
But, what 'authority' was Paul referring to? In the context of a world violently suppressed by the Roman Empire, was he really saying Christians ought to acquiesce to Roman authority? Perhaps a look at scripture is in order:
Here's how Jesus responded to the oppression of ruling tyrants:
- Advised subjects to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" (Matthew 22:21), which many believe advocated tax evasion through untraceable, currency-free trade and barter transactions.
- Turned over the tables of the money changers who were trading legally. (Matthew 21:12-17).
- Was arrested at the Mount of Olives on grounds that he was seditious (rebellious) against Roman authority. Also, "the manner in which Jesus entered Jerusalem was that of a Jewish king who claimed the throne. Convinced that he was King of the Jews and in deliberate fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy, Jesus rides into Jerusalem on an ass's colt. The people greet Jesus with strewn palms and cries of "Hosanna!" the ancient cry of Jewish independence. For Jesus to not have known the seditious actions that this implied, and the political impact that his act caused, would be incredulous to say the least" (from some Jewish site).
- Volunteered himself as a martyr and sacrifice to humanity. Because the trial and crucifixion of Jesus was widely recognized as a ghastly and unjust murder, an enduring subversive resistance to Roman authority was sparked. The Romans soon came to recognize the crucifixion as a profound act of political subversion. In fact, historians report that because of Pilate's poor political judgment in allowing Jesus to be crucified, he was reprimanded by higher Roman authority and exiled to Gaul (where he committed suicide).
By saying, "there is no authority except that which God has established," Paul is calling on the faithful to truly know that violent oppressors have no authority over them. Since no act of violence could come from an authority "established by God," violent authority is not to be recognized as authority. Advice on how to discern between legitimate and illegitimate authority comes from Jesus himself:
"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:16-20The good fruit is true authority, fused with peace. The bad fruit is illegitimate 'authority,' which draws its power from fear, violence, coercion, and force.
Paul's definition of "rebellion" here is violent resistance with the aim of overthrowing an oppressive government. Of course, rebellion with the aim of, (e.g.) overthrowing a government, implies force, which itself is the bad fruit Christ was talking about. He rejects violent resistance, but certainly does not prohibit the peaceful resistance demonstrated by Christ and the many peaceful Christian martyrs and activists.
The radical peaceful civil disobedience demonstrated by Jesus has been employed against oppressive governments admirably and effectively many times. Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, the gentleman in Tienanmen Square who stopped the tanks. Few would argue that these acts of resistance contradicted Christ or threatened peace. And, in all cases, the result was the diminishing power of an oppressive state. Even extraordinarily violent and lawless people champion one who martyrs himself for the sake of peace. The only force desirous of destroying such a person is a force desirous of destroying peace itself. Since this is so plainly obvious in light of Christ's message, story, and sacrifice, any authority that once resided in such a force was made instantly illegitimate (to all aware of it). The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ was complete subversion.
Since the resurrection, there have been repeated historical examples of 'authorities' exposed as enemies of peace, and thus lacking in authority. This was the case for the Catholic church after the Reformation, Nazi Germany after WWII, and the Soviet Union after the Cold War. Despite good intentions, given time, all governments tend to lose authority. Tolstoy said it well...
"Not only does the action of Governments not deter men from crimes; on the contrary, it increases crime by always disturbing and lowering the moral standard of society. Nor can this be otherwise, since always and everywhere a Government, by its very nature, must put in the place of the highest, eternal, religious law (not written in books but in the hearts of men, and binding on every one) its own unjust, man-made laws, the object of which is neither justice nor the common good of all but various considerations of home and foreign expediency."If this is true, which I believe it is, it's not only acceptable for subjects to rebel against failing states using subversive peaceful disobedience, it is the duty of all peace-loving people to do so by definition, according to their own good judgment. In the United States and other republics, it is often forgot that all authority legally derives from the consent of the governed. In the U.S., this observation was a gift from our Founding Fathers, who themselves exposed the authoritative vacuum of the British Empire in the Americas, and left non-treasonous means to do so in the republic they designed. Legitimizing the authority of the people over government theoretically eliminates the need for bloody revolution so long as oppressed citizens exercise their rightful authority (as Paul might say: "as God's servants") to legally dissolve illegitimate authority in government as quickly as possible to protect peace. In this sense, enemies of peace need only stand idly by as the machine of government terrorizes, subjugates, and finally exterminates its own population.
Without Christ or Christ-like behavior, governments are necessarily cannibalistic. Jesus knew this, which is why he asked his followers to eat his body and drink his blood. Christians eat the body and blood of Christ instead of the body and blood of each other.
The body and blood Jesus speaks of includes not only the physical bodies of neighbors, but all property rightfully owned by them, and particularly the portion of property that constitutes their livelihood. It is well known that good people do not need laws to prevent them from stealing from their neighbor. But, almost all people will steal from their neighbor from behind the cloak of law, and particularly when doing so is necessary for the livelihood of their families. This is the case in the United States now. While intending, in vain, to improve the behavior of our neighbors, lawmakers have bound the hands of the righteous and charitable. Whenever this occurs, the overturning of such laws is warranted and necessary. In fact, if the law is used by thieves as a means to steal, it is not only the right of the plundered subjects to overturn those laws–it is their obligation for the sake of peace. If Paul was right, and "the authorities are God’s servants," those who serve God have authority over those who do not, regardless of worldly institutional association. To the extent laws are used as tools by those who violate, for example, the Commandments (by stealing (oppressive taxes) and murdering (unjust wars)), they lose their authority. When this happens, it is the state that rebels against true authority, and "whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted." When this happens, the institution founded by Christ does gain worldly authority over worldly institutions, but not without action on the part of peacemakers.
This, in addition to the fact that Paul himself was an extremely energetic missionary, demonstrates quite clearly that action is warranted and necessary to secure the true authority of Christ, including peaceful subversive action. Any institution that cites the book of Romans in order to prevent revolt by subjugated victims does nothing but expose its fruits–and complete lack of authority in the eyes of all discerning Christians and peacemakers.
